Hi HN, I built this by adapting GPlates (https://www.gplates.org), an academic project providing desktop software for geologists to investigate plate tectonic data. I'm amazed that geologists collected enough data to actually plot my home 750M years ago, so I thought you all would enjoy it too.

Even though plate tectonic models return precise results, you should consider the plots approximate (obviously we will never be able to prove correctness). In my tests I found that model results can vary significantly. I chose this particular model because it is widely cited and covers the greatest length of time.

I'm curious about the accuracy of the visualization. Specifically, at around 20M yrs, one can clearly see the mediterranean sea. The wikipedia page for the Zanclean Deluge[1] says it's theorized to have happened around 5M yrs ago.

Does this mean that the data from gplates doesn't support that theory? Or is that just an artifact of how things were put together for this project?

This is a good point, and I think we'd have to take it up with Chris Scotese, the geologist who produced the rasters I wrap around the globe[1]. There are some details in the PDF included in the download, which explains some coloration choices based on elevation (search for "paleocoastline")[2].

That said, I think there is artistic license taken, and the wet Mediterranean might be an oversight or even a statement by the artist (I've gotten emails from angry geologists because the globe does not advance one theory or another). Part of Scotese's work also predates some of the research on this topic.

It would certainly be more accurate to show a simple plate diagram rather than an artistic version of the Earth, and it would make my life easier too because then I could show continuous plate movement for each year. But there is a certain thrill in seeing ancient earth all globe-like, so I stand by my choice to use these rasters :)

would probably need to look into that theory further. That map at 20Mya is consistent with the fact that Florida was under water during that time. The Gulf Trough, another waterway, was running above the Florida platform around that time up to ~40Mya.

> Even though precise results are returned by the plate tectonic models, the locations are still approximate [...]. In my tests I found that model results can vary significantly.

One challenge with science education content is to avoid nurturing rich ecologies of misconceptions... to the degree possible given resource constraints and conflicting objectives. So here are some random brainstormy ideas.

Add small inserts with different plate models? To reduce the implied certainty. Uncertainty is usually handled poorly in science education, with unfortunate results for education and society. Perhaps pixelate the globe?

The false colors represent elevation (EDIT: no, Scotese's hand-drawn sort-of-elevation maps), not biome. So "green map" may represent a long-term tan desert. Perhaps choose a less pretty but 'less likely to be misinterpreted as biomes' colorization? Maybe as an option? A biome map would be great to have... but at least as of some years ago, it didn't seem anyone was attempting unified paleobiome map models. It seemed more lack of incentive than lack of data, at least for some periods.

Sea level and coastline position varies at high frequency. 12k years ago, the shortest walk from Boston to the sea, was due south past Long Island. A color scheme that deemphasized the coast would allow coastline variation to be averaged/blurred.

The star field is missing long-term features, like a visible galactic disk. Having a higher-density star map might also usefully obscure that the set of bright stars is changing. Or perhaps just another "Bogus" label? They're really quite handy. :)

If anyone has time on their hands, it might be neat to attempt a more principled representation. Perhaps realistic appearance, averaged over a few My? Average cloud cover maps are less pretty than weather, but plausible long-term ones might be derived from relatively simple paleoclimate models. Similarly for biomes.

Paleoglobes are traditionally very misleading. As we move forward, it could be nice to improve on that.

My view is that there's a balance to be struck here. A pixelated globe with blurred coastlines and averaged features full of "bogus" disclaimers would not get the same reception as what I posted here. It would be less likely to be used as a teaching tool and less inspiring to students.

The very least I can do, though, is be clear about what this visualization is and isn't. I spent some time expanding creating a Credits modal yesterday (instead of an alert box) and will use that space to add more of this information and disclaimers.

Nod. Apropos bogosity, the underlying idea is this. Science education illustrations often have some aspects which are crafted with great care for accuracy, and other aspects that are artistic-license psychedelic bogosity. But students often lack the understanding to distinguish which are which. Leaving their grip on reality quite compromised. So if you can do anything to make it easier for them - yay.

It's a really wonderful site and horrible clicktarpit. I'm curious whether you have metadata about when the images were made (originally, I mean, in the case of reproductions of older images). It'd be nice to see the evolution of models from 19th century proto-godzillas to modern fluffy derposaurs.

Could be possible if a 4 light year wide telescope is sent via a worm hole to one of the galaxies in the Virgo cluster (65m light years away) and live imagery of Earth (not via worm hole) is sent back via the worm hole to Earth.

Not needed. Once we can determine the starting composition of the universe, and have enough quantum computing power, we'll be able to simulate the past... and the future too. So you can see what your home looked like in the past and what it'll look like in the future.

Wow! This gave me a whole new perspective on the Uruguayan coast, it's so cool to know that what I am seeing latched off the Antarctic peninsula!!! Specially since it so recognisable. Just a nice piece of trivia, but awesome for me.